Why martial arts can never be standardized

As I see it, there are two reasons why the martial arts can never
become standardized, regardless of the art. The first is simply -
who can standardize the way people think? When one talks of
standardizing technique or of instituting a standard combat
system or even a standardized application of a well known
technique, what one is doing is trying to standardize the human
capacity for imagination and creativity. This is counter-
productive, we need no thought police.

No one can limit the human capacity for adapting to, and
overcoming a changing situation. To quote Musashi's Book of Five
Rings, "The warrior must win in one-to-one combat or in battles
involving large numbers... this is accomplished by the virtue of
heiho."

What is Heiho (strategy)? This is a question that Musashi tried
to answer throughout his book. Heiho is, in short, learning what
you can from anyone who will show you, and applying it
everywhere. Heiho is being aware of everything. Heiho is knowing
the truth when it is spoken. Heiho is also knowing when and how
to act. Heiho is many other things, I wish I could thoroughly
explain it all, but I am still working on it.

The key is that the ability to adapt is most important. By
removing this fluidity, and adaptiveness in training and
application, what we do is turn out a generation of pseudo-
martial artists. These are people who, in good faith, eventually
turn the martial arts into martial dance or worse.

The second reason for the ineligibility of martial arts to be standardized
is, that people, no matter how much they move or look or even think alike,
can never be exactly alike. Since most of us reading this follow a stream
(Ryu), we already know that micro-differences exist within the same stream
or even variation (ha) and can identify with the student who is told by
"X" Sensei that a certain way is the "correct way". This student is later
told by "Y" Sensei that the method of "X" is incorrect. "Y" sensei's version
is later found incorrect by "Z" Sensei

Differences in personal style are to blame, but before one begins
to think of creating a "pure" or "universal" way, one must think
of the nature of the martial arts. Most martial arts are the
creation of one person or a small number of people. The
techniques and concepts are like a pool of information. These
"pools" are not just filled with martial technique, observations
of body mechanics and the "secrets" of timing and power
application, but also of the life experience, history, personal
observations, philosophical concepts and personal style and flare
of the originators. Regardless of stream or variation, there is a
"pool" of information for every school. The "pools" may be very
deep, filled with the life experiences of many masters, or
shallower with the concepts of only one or two masters. All of
them ultimately work out the same way.

Add to this, the student and his or her ability to receive, internalize
and then transmit the lessons. All these factors, for good or bad, combine
to create what we call the martial art. If it is all subject to the views,
ideals, concepts and personal experience of the practitioners, is it any
wonder that variations exist. With such being the case, would not "standardization"
be nothing more than creating another new "pool" of information. The idea
of a "universal" system has inherent in it, the idea of limiting how that
information is to be used, taught and thought about by future students.
Without limitation on expression, observation and application, eventually
two people will perform the "standardized" art differently. This leads
to the development of a variation and we are back to the Ryu-ha system.
Given a few more years, and the system will lead to separate streams (Ryu).

I therefore suggest the term "standardized martial art" is nothing more
than a contradiction in terms. As far as I am concerned, most people I've
met who advocate standard technique, have their heart in the right place.
They want students of swordsmanship to be taught "real sword technique"
and not "chambara" (movie) sword technique. To accomplish this they call
for an organization to teach, test and promote a "standardized system"
(known to some of us Iaido old-timers as Seitei gata Iai).

To meet this same end, I propose another idea, let us create a
confederation of Japanese sword schools and related arts. No one
person should run it (to avoid factionalism) and no one system
should be put above any other. Rank, if deemed important enough
to be fussed over, should be awarded by years invested in the
sword arts, and by ability. Believe me, a beginner looks like a
beginner when under pressure. The stress of course is on ability,
not time since anyone can waste time. As for judging other
people's ability, one need not know the system they are
practicing, it is said that a master can reveal himself by a
simple flick of the wrist, and from what I have seen this is
true.

What could an organization like this do? As I see it, promote Japanese
swordsmanship, pool information and share it with members (through lending
libraries by mail) and hold seminars, not to mention give demonstrations
and publish information. I feel such an organization would weed out the
bad information by supplying good, and create a base for students both
old and new to draw inspiration, ideas and knowledge, while providing
a sense of community and promote respect for individual differences.

Such an organization might succeed in bringing swordsmanship from
the obscure martial art that it is in the West, to something
greater. The only problem is that we must not argue over who the
"leader" should be and simply all become "workers" for the
greater good of swordsmanship. If something is not done, I
predict Japanese swordsmanship in the West will eventually die
out.